krosero

Actually, Jake, no one has attempted to disprove one with the other. You're not reading carefully. The objections here have been about historical methodology and when it becomes ad hoc.

If you go back you'll see plenty of objections leveled at "A or B" as well as "A and B", because I, for one, am not sure what Earl was proposing in this thread. This is what he's told us:

Note: that sounds like A + B, because genomenon ek gunaikos, which Earl says was the first interpolation, is the phrase that he has formerly and always described as a strange way to describe an earthly savior.

In a later post:

That sounds like "A or B".

And he's been criticized in this thread for that -- for not being certain whether genomenon ek gunaikos is a normal or a strange way to denote a human birth.

Yet in his first post he seemed certain, and he has not clarified. I don't know where you get your certainty.

jgibson000

But the issue isn't that it was not in the text that Marcion produced. That seems indisputable. The question is whether its absence from Marcion's text is due to his excision of it from an exemplar that had it. And, in the light of what Tertullian says about what Marcion did to Galatians, as well as what is known about Marcion's proclivities, this also seems indisputable.

Jeffrey Gibson

dog-on

Dr. Gibson, are you going by the word of those with vested interests in making such a case against Marcion, (like Tertullian, Ireanus, or Martyr), when you refer to "Marcion's proclivities", or do you have independent evidence of this as being the fact?

As Marcion is said to have had his canon before 150, what proof do you have that his canon should not to be given priority as to content, other than the Apologetics of his enemies?

Ben C Smith

Question for any who think that Marcion represents the original text of Paul.... Presumably Marcion used that text of Paul because he agreed with what it said; his Pauline text, in other words, was Marcionite (or at least compatible with Marcionism). If his Pauline text was in fact the original, then Paul himself must have been Marcionite (the more so if Paul was just a pseudonym for Marcion). So we have a Marcionite Paul, whom the proto-orthodox must have taken great care in sanitizing for use in the churches, and a Marcionite Marcion, whom the proto-orthodox showed no interest whatsoever in sanitizing. Why were they at such pains to claim Paul for the true faith, but not at all interested in claiming Marcion and other Marcionites for the true faith? Why for that matter did they fail to claim Cerdo, Carpocrates, Simon Magus, and all the others that we now know as heretics?

Ben.

dog-on

Ben, I would conjecture that Marcion/Paul probably did a very good job of evangelizing. Created numerous congregations which, once the church was successful in making Marcion a heretic, could be swallowed up (though this did take some time). Additionally, I believe that Marcion was the first to have a written canon.

As far as not accepting Marcion's beliefs, to the victors...

I am still looking for a valid (non-apologetic) reason that debunks Marcionite priority, especially with regards to Paul.

jgibson000

Sheesh. Another strange moniker. Would you kindly do me the courtesy, as I do for you, of addressing me with your real name?. I am not inclined to respond to anyone who disguises who he or she is.

Why shouldn't I take their word?. These are independent witnesses are they not. And even if they do have vested intersts, aren't you assuming that that those with vested interests never speak the truth when they argue for them?. Moreover, why would those who wished to convince others of the truth of their case about someone resort to lying about or misrepresenting what that person said or did? Wouldn't they be running run the risk of destroying their case and their credibilty since not only those who were opposed what they were writing, but anyone who knew the truth, could do so by simply by pointing to the fact that what was said wasn't true?

What do you mean by "independent" evidence?

I have no idea what you are asking. The content of Marcion's canon has to do with the number of books that was in it, not the integity or the wording of text of the books he included.

Jeffrey Gibson

dog-on

Old Internet habit. BTW, it's Robert.

Are you serious? Sir, this stuff happens every day in our own supposedly "Modern" time (or else Rove wouldn't be able to keep his job). Why do you think it would have been a problem during a period of time that probably had an illiteracy rate of upwards of 90%, and no mass communication to boot? How many people do you think actually had copies of these writings to begin with? How big of a deal would it have been in Rome around 150AD for a few Christians to get into a theological argument? The guys writing the apologies were very well aware of Marcion's supposed herecy. I don't think that it would have taken too long for the Roman church to "fix" those writings. A line here, a line there, a word here, a word there, etc... They even had the audacity to use the heretic's prologues.

I am sorry for the rant, but...

Evidence that is independent of the people who seemed to be quite busy turning Marcion into a heretic.


And you judge the correct wording and integrity against which original copies?

Ben C Smith

I presume by your expression Marcion/Paul that you think Paul and Marcion were the same person. Why then did the church habilitate Paul and not Marcion? That seems like rehabilitating Silas but not Silvanus, Peter but not Simon, Jacob but not Israel.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Andrew Criddle has given a list of readings from J. J. Clabeaux that on text-critical terms probably precede Marcion.

Let us make certain we understand the meaning of this. Marcion flourished in the first half of century II. If his Paul was the original Paul, then he ought to be a superb witness for originality. If his Paul was an altered Paul, then he is just another witness to the text.

So, if we find secondary readings in Marcion, it stands to reason that the second scenario is the true one: Marcion is just another witness to the text.

But, if he is just another witness to the text, then the Marcionite variants in places such as Galatians 4.4 are almost certainly spurious, since in such places it is Marcion against the world.

Think about that for a moment. The Alexandrian, the western, the Byzantine, the so-called Caesarean texts, the various translations (Latin, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Slavonic, Ethiopic), from all parts of Christendom both inside and outside the empire... they all (to my knowledge) have made [or born] of a woman, made under the law. Marcion alone omits the phrase, and Marcion had extreme motive to excise it. If that is not suspicious, I do not know what is.

I do not mean in any way to imply that Marcion never carries the original reading of Paul. I am sure he sometimes or even often does. But where he does he is assuredly supported by other manuscripts. Where Marcion stands alone against them all, or even against most, or certainly against the earliest and best from all text families, he is not to be trusted.

A caveat, however, as you run through that list Andrew gave; as with all text criticism, the work has to be done in the original language.

Ben.

jgibson000

Sorry, but your implied claim here is grounded in the fallacy that because some who have vested interests lie when they make their case, all not only do but must. This simply is not the case.

In any event, the writings of the apologists are not analogous to the writings or the activities to Rove. They are analogous to those who attempt to show why and how Rove is wrong, how he has distorted things. It will not do for them to lie or to engage in distortion if they are to make their case. Witness the film Bush's Brain.

Why does literacy have anything to do with it? All people have to know is what Marcion actually said. And this was not always or even frequely achieved through an individual's private reading of what he wrote. And why are you assuming that because there was no modern means of communication, news and writings were not spread rapidly in the ancient world? What do you actually know about the channels and the means and manner and speed of communication in the ancient world that makes you so confident of the truth of your claim?

Even so, and even assuming that this occured, you are assuming that these changes would have been known early and quickly outside of Rome, let alone that they were ever actually communicated beyond the Roman diocese. But didn't you claim above that rapid dissemination couldn't have happened and that even if it did, no one would have been able to know that the texts were changed given that people could not read?

You are also assuming not only that Tertullian (not to mention Clement and Origen) were part of the Roman Church, but that the text of Galatians that they possessed and their knowledge of what was contained there was influenced or dependent upon these allgedly doctored copies of Galatians that were allegedly produced in Rome. Given where Tertullian, and Clement and Origen lived and the nature and origin of the textual tradition of the MSS that were current there in their time, do you have any evidence that this was the case?


Umm .. which ones are they?

Well leaving aside the question of whether those you refer to were doing what you say they were doing instead of recounting fairly accurately what Marcion himself was doing, we do face the problem that our sources for Marcion come mainly from those who argued against him (Justyn, Irenaueus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen). But given how we can see that these people reported accurately in their polemics both against other "heretics" and against against the pagan philosophers they diagreed with, what these heretics and philosopers wrote, we have little cause to think that they distorted anything of Marcion's.

Against no original copies. But against witnesses to those copies that given their age and their geographical origin and distribution, their transmission history in the versional witnesses, and the shape and wording of how they are quoted by the fathers and in diverse lectionaries, have a good claim to be trusted. Which originals do you judge your ideas of the correct wording and integrity of your idea of the text -- or either the writings of Marcion or the books of the NT -- against?

Jeffrey Gibson